The only thing that separates Australian Culture from our Friends in New Zealand is that 100k strip down the east coast. Get rid of that and we are still pretty much the same. It is quite amazing how different the Cultural cringers that live on the east coast are from the rest of Australia. We have never had doubts about who we are and we have not changed much.

This should properly be called "the trans-Tasman relationship" as the ANZAC relationship did not survive beyond 1915. When he was withdrawn from Gallipoli the commander of NZ forces volunteered his men to fight anywhere, so long as it was nowhere near the Australians.

The trans-Tasman authority regulating food standards is a significant example of the relationship at its best: practical, co-operative and economically beneficial all round. Closer co-operation on policing and biosecurity are slow but important, and have real economic, cultural and foreign policy implications.

NZ take a more thorough approach to corporate regulation, particularly in terms of competition, than Australia does - it is unfortunate that space restricted Cooke from exploring issues like this in greater detail. Squabbling over minor differences or inertia is one thing but the Kiwis are right to fear that where they have higher standards than Australia, they lack the power to insist that the more stringent standard be maintained.

Issues like a common currency would not be as big a leap as Cooke implies, as it would not depend heavily on Washington. NZ have plenty to teach us about dealing with Pacific states - economically as well as culturally or in terms of foreign policy - ignored in Australia for too long. The idea that we might gain from shutting up and listening is a concept that Australian decision-makers have not yet fully embraced. No wonder Helen Clark and others are cranky with us!

I think NZ could teach us a lot about social choices and moral values in the 21st century. While I am not advocating that we should become the West Island we should pay a bit more attention to what they are doing.

I don't think a common currency is really neccessary. The EU did it as their currencies were pegged together and it is striving for ever closer union. But for us different currencies might be handy to reflect different economies.

As far as CER goes; if we can sign a free trade agreement with China whose leadership shares few, if any, of our moral and social values then surely we can have close economic ties with NZ.

It's easy to take differences between governments as a sign of differences between populations, but that seems like an oversimplification to me. Australians and New Zealanders are about as similar as you can get. In fact, I don't think New South Walers are any more different from New Zealanders than Tasmanians are from Queenslanders.

I think a federation of the two countries - a "Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand" - would be a very sensible idea. Cooke talks about "a European Union-style community, with common borders and perhaps even a single currency", which is fair enough, except that it would be even easier for us. After all, we have the same language, the same institutions, the same basic culture and values, even the same head of state.

While we're at it, let's bring Canada on board too: we share pretty much all of this basic stuff with them too. We could use a bigger domestic market, but we can't squeeze more people onto this dry continent: with a federation of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (CANZ) we would have a domestic market of close to 60 million without putting any more strain on the environment.

Hello Ian

While I think an economic market between New Zealand and Oz has possibilities, I believe that New Zealand has been approached before and rejected idea (fear of becoming another state of Aus). Also current fed gov very much jumps to USA beat. For example, NZ (like Canada) refused involvement in Iraq. Australia would need to be less USA compliant for trade to work between other C'wealth countries.

I do not disagree with concept just can't see how it could be implemented.

Cheers

Hi Scout,

A new government can make things look more different than they really are. A change of government in Canberra would indicate a shift in public opinion, but not a radical reversal. The NZ Nationals came pretty close to forming a government after the last elections, but that doesn't mean that New Zealand society itself was teetering between two totally different visions of its place in the world.

I wonder how Canada's current government would have reacted if it had been in power when the Iraq war was being planned? "Canada" might not have looked so different from "Australia" if that had been the case. We have to remember that "Australia" didn't exactly support the war either: I don't remember vast numbers of people marching in the streets in support of the war.

I understand Kiwis not wanting to be absorbed into Australia, but perhaps they would feel less threatened by a CANZ federation because it would not be just their traditional big brother that they were dealing with? And maybe if Australia was part of something bigger (like CANZ), our government would feel less need to be so "USA compliant". CANZ already speaks with one voice at the UN.

You say "I do not disagree with concept just can't see how it could be implemented." My only possible response is that it will only happen if enough people - in all three countries - want it. I keep talking about it in the hope of creating a spark or two of interest. Ultimately it is up to the populations of the three countries to recognise that their similarities are far greater than their differences.

Thanks Ian for the jolt of positive thinking.

Yes, I can see that joining CANZ rather than the other way round is a good approach.

Good points also about Canada's gov at start of Iraq war, although I'll bet that they are relieved now that previous gov did not join coalition of "willing" (I used quotes because the public were definitely not so willing).

And of course talking about it is always a good thing.

Will keep up the discourse.

Are there any links for more info?

Scout,

I'm involved with an organisation called the Federal Commonwealth Society, which proposes things along these lines, and specifically a federation of CANZUK: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. They have a web site at http://www.unitedcommonwealth.org/ and a discussion group at http://fcs.free-forums.org/fcs.html

Getting the UK out of the EU and into a CANZUK federation would take much more effort than getting the CANZ countries into some sort of close cooperation, but I would be in favour of it should the possibility arise.

The group was founded in the UK and is now run from Canada. Like any group of people, there are some members I agree with more and others less. Some I think are raving loonies, but I'm generally too polite to tell them. You may find the general tone of the discussion too conservative for your tastes, which is a pity, because I certainly don't see it as a conservative project.

The UK members see a CANZUK federation as an alternative to the EU. The Canadian members see it as a counterbalance against being sucked into the USA. I see it as a way for us to find our place in the world.

Ian

Thanks for the link to United Commonwealth.

I think the underlying philosphy is a good one.

Quote:

"As a Monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II and her successors as Sovereign, the new Federation could possibly be called the United Kingdoms of the Commonwealth. It could be a Republic with a President at its head or a combination of both Monarchies and Republics with a rotating headship. It could then possibly be called the United Commonwealths.

The unifying element is federation, not the Head of State. It will be up to the people to decide what type of constitution the new Federation would have. However, both monarchists and republicans are welcome in the Federal Commonwealth Society. Our bond is our common culture and form of governance."

Neither republicans (such as myself) or monarchists should have problems with the inclusive nature of the union.

I agree it would be difficult for UK and question that anyway given geographical location with Europe - same as I believe we should be courting our Asian neighbours as well.

However, Canada's geographical location is actually a bonus - a United Commonwealth would have more clout against USA. Always strength in numbers. Be good for Canada (and flow on to rest of commonwealth) if the US had to take them a litle more seriously.

I take your point about conservative nature in discussion group - however, I often find this forum way too conservative also. Such is life.

Scout,

One of the aspects I find most irritating about that discussion group is the perpetual (childish, in my view) speculation about what the federation could be called, what the flag might look like and such things. Most of the members are monarchists, which doesn't really appeal to me philosophically, but I have come around to the view that the monarchy is a helpful point in common for us. It would be far easier to join three or four countries that already have the same head of state than three or four republics.

Regarding our neighbours, I fully agree that we should be on the best possible terms with Asian countries, work towards regional security arrangements, promote development and so one, but I can't see myself wanting to be part of the same country as, say, Indonesia or even Japan. On the other hand, I can easily see myself being part of the same country as CANZUK. A significant number of British people feel the same way about the EU: geographical proximity does not strike them as a very good reason to try and combine what they see as quite diferent ways of viewing the world.

I think the global nature of CANZUK would be a strength. The three rules of real estate are supposed to be location, location and location: CANZUK would be tied into NAFTA, the EU and the Pacific Rim, which basically bridges all of the world's major economic zones. Sounds like a good deal to me.

I hope you contribute to the Federal Commonwealth Society discussion: the more perspectives the better.

Graham Cooke:

Pity. You seem to have misread the wide divergence between Aust and it's poorer cousin ' the land of the little whit cloud' - Pakeha NZ.

Why is it the media and journo's alike keep regurgitating one of WWI greatest Wartime blunders, the disasterous 1915 Gallipoli Campaign, and subsequent ANZAC skirmishes, as living examples of Bilaternal ties between Aust and NZ ?

Our comatose RSL have even opted for a former enemy - Turkish residents, permission to parade alongside Veterans on Anzac Day - mindful 8709 patriots perished, and 2701 of NZ's finest, joining them in Valhalla, is unbelievable.

In a Politically developing World, sovereign Nations can ill afford the luxary of sitting on the fence post while abrogating Military and Social responsibilities - relying on other Nation's to defend and wholly support you.

The Closer Economic Relations manifesto 1983, and ratified by the Trans Tasman Mutual Agreement 1998, however enlightened had limited success.Trade imbalance still exists in Aust favour. Reducing Trade barriers, tariffs, fairer competition, and NZ import licensing restrictions, in many areas have effectively negated earlier derived benefits. Dumping, to this day,is occuring - causing extraordinary cultural damage and contributing to market distortions. Despite hiccups, Aust still trumps the Export bonanza at 47 % or $ 13.3 B, followed by Japan and the US.

A snap-shot of NZ Economic outlook reveal it is very much dependent on Foreign Investment, Tourism and expanding markets. Growth is only 1.6 % of GDP compared to 4 % in Aust. To be fair, our Economy relies on a booming Commodity market which is growing from strength to strength, and doesn't show any signs of weakening. Inemployment is 4.0 %.Current Account Deficit increasing from 2.3 % in 2003 to 7 % in 2006.

There is a growing perception Helen Clark's Government is out of sync with the rest of the World - lacks Political and Military clout. Further, deep resentment NZ is not prepared to assume a fair burden for common defence in an unstable Global enviornment, particularly in the Pacific Basin.

Ever since David Lange pulled out of ANZUS

continued..

in 1989, denying US Nuclear warship's from victualling in NZ ports, relations between the US and 'deputy sheriff' Howard have soured to an all time low. Exchange of military Intelligence and strategic information bottomed, and joint air,sea exercise's not a hope in Hell.

Unsurprisingly, President G Bush went so far as to declare NZ " is a friend but not an Ally ".

Quixotically, the Clark Government then cancelled a lucrative US contract for 28 F16 " Fighting Falcon's" strike fighters, thereby abandoning any role for the NZ Air Force in this capacity. Meanwhile, a " memorandum of understanding " joint plan with Aust to build two FGG ANZAC Class Frigates while our's were being completed, as well as, the Collin's Class Submarine, was rescinded. Kaput.
NZ Navy now comprises two ageing Frigates, transport and a few coastal patrol vessels.

Lauded as the 21 richest Country in the World, and a robust Economy, Defence Analyst regard the situation as a ' bludgers ' option. Military expenditure is 1 % of GDP whereas Aust 3 % and expanding exponentially.

Enigmatic Aust has not forgiven Helen Clark's Government for the Anset (2002) debacle. Her Govt colluded with Air NZ in the worst Corporate collapse this side of the Tasman. Providing >$ 550 M to keep it's National carrier flying, despite 16,000 employee's losing their jobs here. Worst, over $ 400 M in worker entitlement's have only been partially honoured. Hundred's still waiting redundancy payments. Less than a third have been able to secure full time work elsewhere.

Throughout the fiasco, Air NZ kept billing their Fleet Operation's fuel bill on suspended Anset's grounded fleet. Engine and a/c spares were being pillaged and assets stripped. As the Parent Company, they had a duty of care to uphold, yet all the did was ' sink in the boot' where it mattered - loyal staff, and the human side of misery. There has never been a Royal Commission or ASIC Enquiry to vindicate the CEO and Management. It's highly unlikely there will EVER be one.

the Anzac alliance was not forged at Gallipoli,as your correspondence suggests.
The history of the colony of Australia and New Zealand goes back a century before that battle.
When whalers moved between New Zealand and Australia there was no need for passports etc. as both colonies were treated as one.Sydney boys enlisted to join in the Maori Wars,which they considered New Zealand as their land.
If we study history instead of "shooting from the hip." as has become the fashion in relation to many issues such as "The Monachy,Timor,Iraq,and the relationship with our cousins who live in Britain and New Zealand.